Now that GH has gained additional notoriety for reaching #1, I'm taking a 2nd look. My reason for passing after a 1st look is because I kept hearing that the game takes umpteen hours to play through, and requires a dedicated group.

I belong to the "Don't have that kind of time to dedicate to any one game, and don't have a dedicated group" club. So I passed.

But a second look at the game description reports the game time to be only 90-150 mins. What's up with that? I have to assume that's the time needed to finish an entire game, otherwise it'd be misleading.

Have I misunderstood something about the length of this game? I know of one gaming group that's going on their 8th week of playing just one game... and they're still going.

A single scenario can run from two to four hours, depending on number of players and group dynamics.

The game itself comes with 95 different scenarios, plus 17 special solo scenarios which you can download.

Similar to Descent 2nd Ed. or, say, Pandemic Legacy, the game expects you to play through a story-driven campaign. You don't need the exact same people every time, since GH does support drop-in/drop-out, but it does help. GH has... lots of fiddly rules.

My own 3 player group gets about 3 hours a scenario, and I'm the only "heavy board gamer" of the three.

Not sure if this answers all your questions, so if you need anything else keep asking!

Now that GH has gained additional notoriety for reaching #1, I'm taking a 2nd look. My reason for passing after a 1st look is because I kept hearing that the game takes umpteen hours to play through, and requires a dedicated group.

I belong to the "Don't have that kind of time to dedicate to any one game, and don't have a dedicated group" club. So I passed.

But a second look at the game description reports the game time to be only 90-150 mins. What's up with that? I have to assume that's the time needed to finish an entire game, otherwise it'd be misleading.

Have I misunderstood something about the length of this game? I know of one gaming group that's going on their 8th week of playing just one game... and they're still going.

Your original impression was correct. If you don't have a lot of time to devote to the game, and you don't have a regular gaming group, this is probably not a good option for you. While an individual scenario can take 90-150 minutes, and you could enjoy just playing an individual scenario here and there, you would be missing out on quite a lot of the game play.

Your original impression was correct. If you don't have a lot of time to devote to the game, and you don't have a regular gaming group, this is probably not a good option for you. While an individual scenario can take 90-150 minutes, and you could enjoy just playing an individual scenario here and there, you would be missing out on quite a lot of the game play.

To counter, this game is so good that a lot of people will decide to make time for this game. I was never a big long term board gamer and could never get a consistent group to play games but this game changed that.

Once introducing it to some friends, we all got hooked and now make time for this game. It is THAT good.

We play as a group of 4 usually, sometimes 3, and our average scenario length is 2hrs if you include everyone getting to the table and settled in. Some scenarios are longer, some are shorter. We usually plan for a game session of 4 hours, that gives us time to maybe do 2 scenarios if they are quick ones.

...But a second look at the game description reports the game time to be only 90-150 mins. What's up with that? I have to assume that's the time needed to finish an entire game, otherwise it'd be misleading....

I"ve lost track of how many scenarios we've played, but we've only finished one in that time frame, and it was a 2 player game. We average 160-210 minutes for 3 or 4 player games, and that is not including the 30 minute set up or put away time.

Honestly, unless you have that rare group of gamers that can consistently dedicate 2-3 hours per week to play ... you pretty much have no shot at finishing the campaign. And even if you do, at that rate, it will take you years to finish.

I play solo and I played GH on average about 10 hours/week from about Feb through September and I still haven't finished the campaign.

As a solo player with a large table in my basement dedicated to the game, I saved myself the "take out/put away" time and I was able to play more quickly finishing most scenarios in around 75 to 90 minutes.

So if you cannot do what I was able to do, or you do not have a dedicated gaming group ... pass on GH. It is a very good game, but it is certainly not worth it just to play it a few times and then shelve it.

I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.

I can feel bits of my brain falling away like wet cake.

albcann wrote:

Honestly, unless you have that rare group of gamers that can consistently dedicate 2-3 hours per week to play ... you pretty much have no shot at finishing the campaign. And even if you do, at that rate, it will take you years to finish.

I play solo and I played GH on average about 10 hours/week from about Feb through September and I still haven't finished the campaign.

As a solo player with a large table in my basement dedicated to the game, I saved myself the "take out/put away" time and I was able to play more quickly finishing most scenarios in around 75 to 90 minutes.

So if you cannot do what I was able to do, or you do not have a dedicated gaming group ... pass on GH. It is a very good game, but it is certainly not worth it just to play it a few times and then shelve it.

Eh, I've paid $50 for games that aren't likely to get more than 5 plays in 5 years. I'm fine paying $100 for a game that might only get play once a month.

I play with a group of people that generally don't like campaign games. We tried playing descent and only got through like 3 missions. I was worried about getting Gloomhaven, but we have played 4-5 scenarios and everyone seems to like it. Now, I'm not sure they would play without my insistence, but so far no one has complained. We will probably not finish the campaign, as we play at most once a week. But I'm fine playing once in a while for a year or so. That's what I expected.

In terms of time, it takes us about 3 to 3.5 hours to play through most scenarios with 4 players. We aren't blazing fast, but are experienced, steady gamers. Have had a few take 4 hours, but that is with breaks.

I love the game, but you need a least one hardcore gamer who loves sorting pieces, keeping track of things, and organizing everything. That's me, and the rest of my group just follows along. I recommend the game for sure, but the person buying it has to know what they're getting into.

Setup/takedown is annoying but I typically do it before/after the session.

Important caveat: I have not yet played Gloomhaven. But from my past experiences as a DM, I have found that if players can decide at the end of a session what they want to do at the beginning of the next session, that helps in setup. I always hosted at my house and if I knew that the players were going to do "X" first, I'd have everything needed for that ready to go when they arrived.

So, for example, if at the end of a Gloomhaven session the players can decide "ok, we're going to return to Gloomhaven and then do Scenario 'X'," you might be able to have everything for a Gloomhaven visit and the map tiles for Scenario "X" ready to go when the players arrive. It doesn't lessen the setup time for the party host, but it does allow the game to immediately begin once everyone is in place.

Setup/takedown is annoying but I typically do it before/after the session.

Important caveat: I have not yet played Gloomhaven. But from my past experiences as a DM, I have found that if players can decide at the end of a session what they want to do at the beginning of the next session, that helps in setup. I always hosted at my house and if I knew that the players were going to do "X" first, I'd have everything needed for that ready to go when they arrived.

So, for example, if at the end of a Gloomhaven session the players can decide "ok, we're going to return to Gloomhaven and then do Scenario 'X'," you might be able to have everything for a Gloomhaven visit and the map tiles for Scenario "X" ready to go when the players arrive. It doesn't lessen the setup time for the party host, but it does allow the game to immediately begin once everyone is in place.

YMMV, of course.

This is exactly what I do. They choose the next scenario at the end of the session and I have it ready by the start of the next.

We must run a bit fast but with 2 players setup and playtime takes around 90 minutes. When I ran a four player gaming it lasted 3.5 hours. If you visit Gloomhaven when finished add 10 minutes to your playtime.

I do have an organizer which speeds up setup dramatically. I don't know if I'd regularly want to play a 3-4 hour game but I think Gloomhaven really moves well with 2-3 players. It doesn't feel like it's going as long as it actually is. There are always important decisions to make.

I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.

I can feel bits of my brain falling away like wet cake.

jomolungma wrote:

Important caveat: I have not yet played Gloomhaven. But from my past experiences as a DM, I have found that if players can decide at the end of a session what they want to do at the beginning of the next session, that helps in setup. I always hosted at my house and if I knew that the players were going to do "X" first, I'd have everything needed for that ready to go when they arrived.

This can also help create a hook to get players thinking about the next game, which can motivate groups without a firmly scheduled time...

Honestly, unless you have that rare group of gamers that can consistently dedicate 2-3 hours per week to play ... you pretty much have no shot at finishing the campaign. And even if you do, at that rate, it will take you years to finish.

I play solo and I played GH on average about 10 hours/week from about Feb through September and I still haven't finished the campaign.

As a solo player with a large table in my basement dedicated to the game, I saved myself the "take out/put away" time and I was able to play more quickly finishing most scenarios in around 75 to 90 minutes.

So if you cannot do what I was able to do, or you do not have a dedicated gaming group ... pass on GH. It is a very good game, but it is certainly not worth it just to play it a few times and then shelve it.

Eh, I've paid $50 for games that aren't likely to get more than 5 plays in 5 years. I'm fine paying $100 for a game that might only get play once a month.

Good for you. But based on the parameters given by the OP, I think my advice is sound.

I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.

I can feel bits of my brain falling away like wet cake.

albcann wrote:

tumorous wrote:

albcann wrote:

Honestly, unless you have that rare group of gamers that can consistently dedicate 2-3 hours per week to play ... you pretty much have no shot at finishing the campaign. And even if you do, at that rate, it will take you years to finish.

I play solo and I played GH on average about 10 hours/week from about Feb through September and I still haven't finished the campaign.

As a solo player with a large table in my basement dedicated to the game, I saved myself the "take out/put away" time and I was able to play more quickly finishing most scenarios in around 75 to 90 minutes.

So if you cannot do what I was able to do, or you do not have a dedicated gaming group ... pass on GH. It is a very good game, but it is certainly not worth it just to play it a few times and then shelve it.

Eh, I've paid $50 for games that aren't likely to get more than 5 plays in 5 years. I'm fine paying $100 for a game that might only get play once a month.

Good for you. But based on the parameters given by the OP, I think my advice is sound.

Odd. Based on the parameters given by OP, the first reply answered his question and your post is entirely superfluous.

FWIW...my group has been playing GH once a week since it dropped last Feb. We started in March sometime. We have 4 players and meet once a week. I set up the scenario ahead of time so we can jump in right away (we play on Wednesdays and people are crunched for time). So not counting set up, a game usually lasts 2-3h. There are some games, like the boss fights, that are more like 1h.

Generally we sit down, check to see if anyone has any left over town actions to do, and set out drawing a road event card. Then we play out the scenario, then we do our town stuff. I keep track of all of our storylines and quests in an email and usually on Mondays, send out the "what do we want to play this week?" msg. Usually there's some small discussion about what storylines we care about or if there's a fork in the road, what direction we want to pursue.

The end is in sight for me, as the gamekeeper. I haven't spoiled myself with the actual text, but being responsible for framing the questions and keeping track of everything, it's easier for me to see what connects to what. I think if we wanted to blaze to the end of the campaign, it would be 6-8 more games. We'll probably focus on other storylines and people's personal quests, so we've probably got more in the range of 20ish games left. Which means I suspect we'll finish up sometime this summer. We'll have been playing for around 15 months, with an average of 2-3 sessions per month (there's always something coming up that causes us to cancel -- holidays, weddings, life things, etc...).

Honestly, unless you have that rare group of gamers that can consistently dedicate 2-3 hours per week to play ... you pretty much have no shot at finishing the campaign. And even if you do, at that rate, it will take you years to finish.

I play solo and I played GH on average about 10 hours/week from about Feb through September and I still haven't finished the campaign.

As a solo player with a large table in my basement dedicated to the game, I saved myself the "take out/put away" time and I was able to play more quickly finishing most scenarios in around 75 to 90 minutes.

So if you cannot do what I was able to do, or you do not have a dedicated gaming group ... pass on GH. It is a very good game, but it is certainly not worth it just to play it a few times and then shelve it.

Eh, I've paid $50 for games that aren't likely to get more than 5 plays in 5 years. I'm fine paying $100 for a game that might only get play once a month.

Good for you. But based on the parameters given by the OP, I think my advice is sound.

Odd. Based on the parameters given by OP, the first reply answered his question and your post is entirely superfluous.

All, thank you very much for your replies and input! Everything you provided is the perfect sort of insight which is extremely useful toward making a purchase decision. Exactly what I was hoping for.

I'd like to reply to each of your posts individually, but too many of you jumped-in to help! So let me just touch on this one comment, which hits where I was coming from in the first place:

albcann wrote:

Honestly, unless you have that rare group of gamers that can consistently dedicate 2-3 hours per week to play ... you pretty much have no shot at finishing the campaign. And even if you do, at that rate, it will take you years to finish.

This excerpt by albcann pretty much summarizes the impression I formed about this game early-on, which is why I passed. (Plus his recommendation which followed is one I gathered as well). So it's when I revisited the game's BGG page to see that it has 17,000 reported owners and over 5,000 of them rate GH a '10', that I began to wonder if I was missing something:

"Do 17,000 gamers really have that much time to dedicate to seeing this game through? Otherwise, why buy it? And at least 5,000 must be playing it enough to give it a '10' rating. Doesn't anyone sleep anymore?"... are all questions I instantly wondered to myself upon seeing the stats, which is what prompted my OP.

For me, I'd love to buy this game (and still might for the solo play), but I fear it'd be at the expense of the rest of my collection which I've invested so much in. Given the picture you guys have painted, then I might as well sell off the rest of my collection as GH will be my only game for the next decade. Of course I'm being facetious, but you get my gist.

And so that I don't want a game - no matter how good it is - to snuff out the rest of my collection (and I better cancel my pending Kickstarter pledges), then perhaps GH is not going to be an instant buy as soon as it's available again. But that solo play certainly does sound intriguing... but wait... I still have 20 other great solo games I've yet to get to the table.

Ah, first-world problems.

Thanks again, all!

(And Ben Kyo, thanks for getting right to the point, right off the bat)!

I would just like to add that you will not feel cheated if you buy that game (already a classic) just for collector's reason and play it a few times to see what the fuss is all about. After a few sessions other games will be getting interesting again. Its great, but still just a certain kind of game (cooperative dungeon crawler), so other genres are not covered.

I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.

I can feel bits of my brain falling away like wet cake.

bgm1961 wrote:

"Do 17,000 gamers really have that much time to dedicate to seeing this game through? Otherwise, why buy it? And at least 5,000 must be playing it enough to give it a '10' rating. Doesn't anyone sleep anymore?"... are all questions I instantly wondered to myself upon seeing the stats, which is what prompted my OP.

I think you are assuming that 'playing it enough to give it a 10 rating' requires making it through the campaign. A lot of people are comfortable rating the game a 10 after playing for a mere 2, 6, 20, 40 hours. Which is to say that this is a game that a lot of people enjoy playing regardless of the campaign.

bgm1961 wrote:

For me, I'd love to buy this game (and still might for the solo play), but I fear it'd be at the expense of the rest of my collection which I've invested so much in. Given the picture you guys have painted, then I might as well sell off the rest of my collection as GH will be my only game for the next decade. Of course I'm being facetious, but you get my gist.

That's not an unreasonable thought. Mage Knight and Kingdom Death: Monster both dealt severe blows to the playtime I allowed for games. I would not be surprised to see the same from Gloomhaven.